Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Countdowns, Buddies & Challenges
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121   ^
Old Tue, Jun-30-09, 05:31
Hutchinson's Avatar
Hutchinson Hutchinson is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 2,886
 
Plan: Dr Dahlqvist's
Stats: 205/152/160 Male 69
BF:
Progress: 118%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amandawood
Are we supposed to all go and throw our vit D supplements down the toilet just on the basis of one blog???
Overall, mean serum 25(OH)D was lower in 2000-2004 than 1988-1994. Assay changes unrelated to changes in vitamin D status accounted for much of the difference in most population groups. In an adult subgroup, combined changes in BMI, milk intake, and sun protection appeared to contribute to a real decline in vitamin D status.

Part of the problem is that industrialised foods such as refined flours and omega6 vegetable oils may be contributing to our increasing inability to metabolize Vitamin D from our diet or store it from sunshine. Our bodies are increasingly showing signs of inflammation while our intake and reserves of natural anti inflammatories like vitamin D3, omega 3, magnesium are declining.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #122   ^
Old Tue, Jun-30-09, 06:49
Lere Lere is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 60
 
Plan: Paleo
Stats: 232/219/200 Male 70 inches
BF:
Progress:
Default Comparison of vitamin D to Antioxidants still stands.

amandawood , You talk a lot of sense. I think the course of vitamin D research has some way to go before it can be said to have diverged from that on antioxidants. So far the rationale for supplementing vitamin D is the same as was the case for supplementing antioxidants, sick people have less. That is exactly what has been found for vitamin D levels, There is one big difference: the trials of vitamin D supplementation have not been done yet.

The main reason I am certain that extra 'D' is bad is the way the body treats it. It restricts the amount in the blood by various mechanisms. So I think you ought to be wondering whether your body's metabolism is so wrong to 'flush it down the toilet' (most of it anyway). To my way of thinking if it was beneficial vitamin D would be treated as such by the body - it isn't.

Low carb eating is natural , ingesting vitamin D year round in the unnaturally massive amounts required to raise serum levels - of just one metabolite - is getting away from what our bodies are designed for. Any time that route is taken there is a price to be paid.
Reply With Quote
  #123   ^
Old Tue, Jun-30-09, 07:30
Hutchinson's Avatar
Hutchinson Hutchinson is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 2,886
 
Plan: Dr Dahlqvist's
Stats: 205/152/160 Male 69
BF:
Progress: 118%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lere
So far the rationale for supplementing vitamin D is the same as was the case for supplementing antioxidants, sick people have less. That is exactly what has been found for vitamin D levels, There is one big difference: the trials of vitamin D supplementation have not been done yet.
I agree we need more good quality Vitamin D3 supplement trials where rather than concentrating on the amount consumed we concentrate on the 25(OH)D attained and maintained.

Quote:
The main reason I am certain that extra 'D' is bad is the way the body treats it. It restricts the amount in the blood by various mechanisms. So I think you ought to be wondering whether your body's metabolism is so wrong to 'flush it down the toilet' (most of it anyway). To my way of thinking if it was beneficial vitamin D would be treated as such by the body - it isn't.
Maybe your way of thinking is flawed. Maybe evolving naked living outdoors our dna evolved to naturally acquire large amounts of D3 from sunlight and maybe our DNA did not evolve to cope well with inflammatory agents such as grains, omega 6, High fructose corn syrup etc. Maybe the mechanisms for stabilizing 25(OH)D levels depend on regular full body sun exposure and lower intakes of inflammatory foods or those foods that Shorten the half life of D3

Quote:
Low carb eating is natural , ingesting vitamin D year round in the unnaturally massive amounts required to raise serum levels - of just one metabolite - is getting away from what our bodies are designed for. Any time that route is taken there is a price to be paid.
Our bodies naturally store D3 for winter use when circulating levels get above 40ng ~50ng having a reserve of anti inflammatory agent stored may allow better survival through the winter and improved fertility in the spring. The price to be paid for higher vitamin D status appears to be less pain, improved cognition, less chronic illness and reduced risk of death.

Perhaps you can point to the evidence to support your claim that a higher vitamin d status such as 55ng 137.5nmol/l attained and maintained throughout the year has measurable adverse outcomes?

When you produce your evidence then we will consider what you have to say but I read the full text of every vitamin D paper that I can acquire and the abstracts of everything else. Of course time will tell but at the moment the evidence supports the idea that levels of 25(OH)D around 1378.5nmol/l 55ng are associated with less chronic disease incidence. and the amount of evidence supporting that idea grows daily. If indeed more people are using D3 supplements and the result of doing so were a price in worse health outcomes those should be feeding into the results and we should be seeing, particularly amongst the users of 5000iu/d who are trying to keep status above 55ng year round, greater incidence of chronic disease. Pay attention to what is happening at heartscanblog and the Track your Plaque sister site.

These people are all reporting better health outcomes. My experience for what it is worth is that the longer I keep my status over 55ng 137.5nmol/l the better I feel, both mentally and physically. I was a mental and physical wreck 5 yrs ago barely able to stand or walk, mentally depressed alternating between manic highs to suicidal lows.

If maintaining the natural vitamin D status that allows human breast milk to flow replete with vitamin D isn't good for me then it's surprising I feel better than ever.
Reply With Quote
  #124   ^
Old Tue, Jun-30-09, 08:27
Lere Lere is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 60
 
Plan: Paleo
Stats: 232/219/200 Male 70 inches
BF:
Progress:
Default Harmful effects explain why 'D 'isn't maximized

Hutchinson, '"55ng 137.5nmol/l" ?

I think you meant to say ' 55ng/mL or 137.5nmol/L' .

I'm interested in how much you take to attain and maintain such a level?


"Maybe evolving naked living outdoors" would be significant if we maximized vitamin D production - but we don't. Like I said 'D' synthesis stops after 20 minutes of near full body exposure. And there are other limiting mechanisms. Think I'm making it up? You really need to read the references provided at the posts I've linked to.

"Harmful effects probably appear at sustained levels as low as 130 nmol/L."
Reply With Quote
  #125   ^
Old Tue, Jun-30-09, 08:32
Wifezilla's Avatar
Wifezilla Wifezilla is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,367
 
Plan: I'm a Barry Girl
Stats: 250/208/190 Female 72
BF:
Progress: 70%
Location: Colorado
Default

Quote:
The price to be paid for higher vitamin D status appears to be less pain, improved cognition, less chronic illness and reduced risk of death.

I'll pay that price
Reply With Quote
  #126   ^
Old Tue, Jun-30-09, 08:55
black57 black57 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 11,822
 
Plan: atkins/intermit. fasting
Stats: 166/136/135 Female 5'3''
BF:
Progress: 97%
Location: Orange, California
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amandawood
You know what I read? That he had very very low magnesium levels!!! And that this can cause sudden cardiac arrest!!!

My current hobby-horse (in case you haven't noticed) is that it seems to be very important to have good magnesium levels as well as good vitamin D levels. If he was low in both, then that would explain a lot.

I couldn't say where I saw this, just whilst I was surfing...

But I might see if I can find something again...

amanda


Yeah, true...also low potassium could also result in sudden cardiac arrest. Magnesium and potassium are electrolytes. This is the means in which the body conducts electricity throughout vital organs and other cellular activities. I think that he was low in everything including food. Plus, with lupus and, the need for a lung transplant and chronic pain, in reality he was dying regardless of the root cause. Too bad he didn't hang around this site, he would have lived a little longer.

Last edited by black57 : Tue, Jun-30-09 at 09:06.
Reply With Quote
  #127   ^
Old Tue, Jun-30-09, 08:57
Lere Lere is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 60
 
Plan: Paleo
Stats: 232/219/200 Male 70 inches
BF:
Progress:
Default Centenerians, low insulin and what else.

From the Vitamin D council website:-
"When researchers went to an Italian nursing home, they found that 99 of 104 residents had no detectable vitamin D in their blood,"

Bad news for these people ?

All of the 104 resident were over 98 years old!

I hate to think what would have happened if they'd been keeping their vitamin D levels 'normal' or, God forbid, at 137.5nmol/L.

"High vitamin D intake is associated with brain lesions in elderly subjects, possibly as a result of vascular calcification (Payne et al., 2007). Genetically modified mice with high vitamin D levels show signs of premature aging: retarded growth, osteoporosis, atherosclerosis, ectopic calcification, immunological deficiency, skin and general organ atrophy, hypogonadism, and short lifespan (Tuohimaa, 2009). Vitamin D supplementation during infancy is associated with asthma and allergic conditions in adulthood (Hyppönen et al., 2004)"

Mad dogs and ....
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/200...d-dogs-and.html
Reply With Quote
  #128   ^
Old Tue, Jun-30-09, 09:04
black57 black57 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 11,822
 
Plan: atkins/intermit. fasting
Stats: 166/136/135 Female 5'3''
BF:
Progress: 97%
Location: Orange, California
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lere
Low carb eating is natural , ingesting vitamin D year round in the unnaturally massive amounts required to raise serum levels - of just one metabolite - is getting away from what our bodies are designed for. Any time that route is taken there is a price to be paid.



What is unnatural is restricting sunshine and wearing chemicals that refract healthy sunshine. It IS natural to walk around in our birthday suits but we can't do that eaither. Even if we could walk around naked, that would be useless if you live in, say, Ohio, especially if you' black. There is already a price being paid by restricting the natural way to get vitamin D. Let's not remedy this by restricting alternative ways of taking in this vital nutrient.
Reply With Quote
  #129   ^
Old Tue, Jun-30-09, 09:23
Lere Lere is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 60
 
Plan: Paleo
Stats: 232/219/200 Male 70 inches
BF:
Progress:
Default Fortunately everything you've said is incorrect.

"What is unnatural is restricting sunshine and wearing chemicals that refract healthy sunshine. It IS natural to walk around in our birthday suits but we can't do that eaither. Even if we could walk around naked, that would be useless if you live in, say, Ohio, especially if you' black.2

Fortunately everything you've said is incorrect 'Sunscreen can reduce vitamin D production, but probably not enough to have a significant effect.'

'Clinically prescribed sunscreen (sun protection factor 15) does not decrease serum vitamin D concentration sufficiently either to induce changes in parathyroid function or in metabolic markers.'
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...Pubmed_RVDocSum
09


Vitamin D and homeostasis
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/200...omeostasis.html

" Matsuoka et al. (1991) demonstrated that after single-dose, whole-body UVB exposure black subjects had distinctly lower serum vitamin D3 levels than whites, but differences between the two groups narrowed after liver hydroxylation to 25-OHD and disappeared after kidney hydroxylation to 1,25-(OH)2D. These findings suggest that there is a compensatory mechanism whereby, in the presence of vitamin D3 suppression by melanin, the liver and kidney hydroxylating enzymes are activated in tandem to ensure that the concentration of the biologically active 1,25-(OH)2D metabolite is normalized and kept constant regardless of ethnic pigmentation (Matsuoka et al., 1991, 1995).


Robins (2009) goes on to note that nearly half of all African Americans are vitamin-D deficient but show no signs of calcium deficiency. Indeed, they “have a lower prevalence of osteoporosis, a lower incidence of fractures and a higher bone mineral density than white Americans, who generally exhibit a much more favourable vitamin D status.” He also cites a survey of 232 black (East African) immigrant children in Melbourne, Australia, among whom 87% had levels below 50 nmol/L and 44% below 25 nmol/L. None had rickets (McGillivray et al., 2007)."
Reply With Quote
  #130   ^
Old Tue, Jun-30-09, 10:50
Zuleikaa Zuleikaa is offline
Finding the Pieces
Posts: 17,049
 
Plan: Mishmash
Stats: 365/308.0/185 Female 66
BF:
Progress: 32%
Location: Maryland, US
Default

Lere
You are talking apples and oranges. You are correct that sunscreen use won't affect the current serum concentrations of concentrations of vitamin D. That's not the point. That level of vitamin D is already in the system.

What sunscreen does is prevent up to 95% of vitamin D generation through the skin. And that means though you have vitamin D in your system, you won't add to it or replace the amount you use up which leads to depletion and deficiency.

Ah, and the use of suncreen did decrease 25-hydroxvitamin D levels...just not enough to induce secondary hyperparthyroidism.
Those of us here know that levels required to ensure parathyroid function are very low and easily corrected...much higher levels are required for preventive and optimum health.

And regards the nursing home residents...do you have that cite?

I'm assuming if they were 100+, they grew up in a much less modern era and were probably vitamin D replete growing up. Add to that organic produce, physical labor, outside work, Mediterranean environment, etc. and I'm not surprised at their longevity and health.

Last edited by Zuleikaa : Tue, Jun-30-09 at 10:56.
Reply With Quote
  #131   ^
Old Tue, Jun-30-09, 11:11
Zuleikaa Zuleikaa is offline
Finding the Pieces
Posts: 17,049
 
Plan: Mishmash
Stats: 365/308.0/185 Female 66
BF:
Progress: 32%
Location: Maryland, US
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zuleikaa
Lere
You are talking apples and oranges. You are correct that sunscreen use won't affect the current serum concentrations of concentrations of vitamin D. That's not the point. That level of vitamin D is already in the system.

What sunscreen does is prevent up to 95% of vitamin D generation through the skin. And that means though you have vitamin D in your system, you won't add to it or replace the amount you use up which leads to depletion and deficiency.

Ah, and the use of suncreen did decrease 25-hydroxvitamin D levels...just not enough to induce secondary hyperparthyroidism.
Those of us here know that levels required to ensure parathyroid function are very low and easily corrected...much higher levels are required for preventive and optimum health.

And regards the nursing home residents...do you have that cite?

I'm assuming if they were 100+, they grew up in a much less modern era and were probably vitamin D replete growing up. Add to that organic produce, physical labor, outside work, Mediterranean environment, etc. and I'm not surprised at their longevity and health.


Oh and your quote from the Italians in the nursing home. Here's what Dr. Cannell had to say:

The Vitamin D Newsletter February 2007go to newsletter archivesTransmission of InfluenzaTime for some continuing education with another vitamin D quiz!...
People can reach 100 years of age without any vitamin D in their blood.
6 False True True. When researchers went to an Italian nursing home, they found that 99 of 104 residents had no detectable vitamin D in their blood, yet all of the 104 resident were over 98 years old? The keyword here is "can"—the study said nothing about what the residents' vitamin D blood levels were prior to their arrival at the nursing home. A recent large study showed good evidence that low levels are not only associated with going into nursing homes, but dying as well. Passeri G, et al. Low vitamin D status, high bone turnover, and bone fractures in centenarians. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003 Nov;88(11):5109–15. Visser M, et al. Low serum concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D in older persons and the risk of nursing home admission. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Sep;84(3):616–22; quiz 671–2.

Not good sportsmanship to cherry pick, but understandable. Not at all kosher to omit the entire story.
Reply With Quote
  #132   ^
Old Tue, Jun-30-09, 12:30
Jayppers's Avatar
Jayppers Jayppers is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 651
 
Plan: Mostly carnivory
Stats: 145/145/145 Male 5'11'' (feet and inches)
BF:
Progress: -20%
Location: Ohio
Default

Quote:
You know what I read? That he had very very low magnesium levels!!! And that this can cause sudden cardiac arrest!!!
Not surprised here at all. He was most likely more than just magnesium deficient.
Reply With Quote
  #133   ^
Old Tue, Jun-30-09, 12:52
deb34 deb34 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,902
 
Plan: IF/Keto OMAD
Stats: 236.9/214.1/199 Female 66 inches
BF:Why yes/it/is !!!
Progress: 60%
Default

hello folks, just dropping in to get your thoughts on my condundrum. I have PCOS and other health issues so from January i've been taking D3 25000 IU about 4 times per week to the present. I can't afford and my doctor won't test my D levels so I'm going by symptom inprovement. Last year I did great and felt great doing that amount of D for about 4 months and then going off until November 2008.

I upped my dose from Jan 2009 thinking it would help me get over fatigue, body, bone and joint pain as well as the PCOS stuff. I also wanted to get a head start to prevent sunburn when warm weather started and so I thought a good 5 months at this dose would suit me fine. I also take 400-600mg magnesium per day and occasionally some potassium. I can't take too much potassium because of my PCOS medications but I will once in a while to make sure it can work with the D and Mag.

So, I had the chance to spend some time in the sun recently and so I did. I was out for about an hour and I burned my neck and chest and everything else didn't change colour at all!

What am I missing or doing wrong that I burned at this dosage? I'm thinking of going to 50 000 IU per day ....what do you all think?
Reply With Quote
  #134   ^
Old Tue, Jun-30-09, 13:00
Zuleikaa Zuleikaa is offline
Finding the Pieces
Posts: 17,049
 
Plan: Mishmash
Stats: 365/308.0/185 Female 66
BF:
Progress: 32%
Location: Maryland, US
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deb34
hello folks, just dropping in to get your thoughts on my condundrum. I have PCOS and other health issues so from January i've been taking D3 25000 IU about 4 times per week to the present. I can't afford and my doctor won't test my D levels so I'm going by symptom inprovement. Last year I did great and felt great doing that amount of D for about 4 months and then going off until November 2008.

I upped my dose from Jan 2009 thinking it would help me get over fatigue, body, bone and joint pain as well as the PCOS stuff. I also wanted to get a head start to prevent sunburn when warm weather started and so I thought a good 5 months at this dose would suit me fine. I also take 400-600mg magnesium per day and occasionally some potassium. I can't take too much potassium because of my PCOS medications but I will once in a while to make sure it can work with the D and Mag.

So, I had the chance to spend some time in the sun recently and so I did. I was out for about an hour and I burned my neck and chest and everything else didn't change colour at all!

What am I missing or doing wrong that I burned at this dosage? I'm thinking of going to 50 000 IU per day ....what do you all think?
I don't really know enough about the circumstances to do other than speculate.

Was this your first time out this season for this long?

Were you lying down sunning?

Are you large busted?

The neck and bust would be very vulnerable.


It might have been too much, too soon.
Reply With Quote
  #135   ^
Old Tue, Jun-30-09, 13:21
deb34 deb34 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,902
 
Plan: IF/Keto OMAD
Stats: 236.9/214.1/199 Female 66 inches
BF:Why yes/it/is !!!
Progress: 60%
Default

Was this your first time out this season for this long? I guess so, the weather has been cool and rainy with not much actual warm sun...so no other bare flesh since last summer.

Were you lying down sunning?- No just walking around outside

Are you large busted?- Yep- how did you know?

I guess part of it was that I had my Hair up too.... but I thought at the high dose of D, that I would have some protection from burning at all... I guess not, maybe that only works for some people.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:31.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.